I know these guys are stupid with an emphasis on STUPID, but whenever you think we've hit the bottom of the barrel they show up with a shovel.
American Politics thread: No Nazis Allowed
-
-
-
So the racist shithead wing of Trump's cabinet is emitting Russian stink, the nutty military shithead wing emits a Russia stink, and now the dynasty shithead wing itself is emitting a Russia stink.
At what point is there essentially no way it doesn't go to the top.
-
@Monkey:
So the racist shithead wing of Trump's cabinet is emitting Russian stink, the nutty military shithead wing emits a Russia stink, and now the dynasty shithead wing itself is emitting a Russia stink.
At what point is there essentially no way it doesn't go to the top.
It's truly crazy to think how nearly the entire echelon of the Republican party, in a more just and fair world, could be busted for treason. Especially how they often accused liberal Democrats of being Russian sympathizers way back when.
-
lol, just remembered certain folks guffawing at us in the very earliest months after the election about that ridiculous Russia thing.
A subset of them may be learning and their silence is acceptable and understandable.
The others are busy stuffing their empty heads with feel-good conspiracy bullshit on /pol/ or somewhere to numb the pain of reality. -
Funny thing, I was going to post about how Trump is stupid and Devos is insufferable, but then I just stumbled upon this poll. It states that belief in creationism is at an all time low. Take it as you will. The number is 38%, which admitedly is still a huge amount of people. http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx
Democracy is only as effective as the mass education level of the nation.
No wonder the demagogue administration want to cut educational funding.
-
@Monkey:
lol, just remembered certain folks guffawing at us in the very earliest months after the election about that ridiculous Russia thing.
Along with that super ludicrous idea that Wikileaks was carrying water for them.
-
The US needs this guy–--
! >! >! >!
-
The US needs this guy–--
! >! >! >! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Robespierre.jpg/220px-Robespierre.jpg
Yeah because he helped you guys out so much?
-
I don't know who that is. He is a Founding Father?
-
I don't know who that is. He is a Founding Father?
It is Maximillien Robespierre.
[h=1][/h] -
@Monkey:
Yeah because he helped you guys out so much?
His radicality was admirable.
-
His radically was admirable.
The variety of radical that results in circular firing squads and mob mentality witch-hunt violence is the opposite of admirable. It is a cancer.
-
His radicality was admirable.
He literally called his tenure the Reign of Terror. Come on, now.
-
@Monkey:
The variety of radical that results in circular firing squads and mob mentality witch-hunt violence is the opposite of admirable. It is a cancer.
Do you have a one-sided vision of him? –- I don't see him as a monster.
And are you having this reaction because I said "the US needs him" ? It might have been a tad provocative, but in the end the US needs radicalism. I don't even know what we're arguing here.@S.C.:
He literally called his tenure the Reign of Terror. Come on, now.
This is a stupid statement though. And I didn't say everything he did was completely fine.
-
Do you have a one-sided vision of him? –- I don't see him as a monster.
There is nowhere ever that witch-hunts have been good or positive forces. Robespierre is a small part of a larger story of crap that spans time and space.
It might have been a tad provocative, but in the end the US needs radicalism.
Can you first define what you mean by radicalism? Because it can mean lots of different things.
If your posing Robespierre as a sign that swinging to extreme populist leftism in response to extreme populist rightism is a cool idea, I concede the floor to the honorable Venezuelan representative Mr. Maxterdexter in arguing a solid "Ay dios mio no".
-
This is a stupid statement though. And I didn't say everything he did was completely fine.
Okay, then how about how due to the extremes his regime had lead to Napoleon taking power to bring some level of stability back, rendering the whole spirit of the Revolution in waste?
-
Not necessarily Robespierre, but the US obviously needs stronger advocates for guillotining the bourgeois
I'm looking at you, Bernie
-
Isn't Trump technically a radical?
-
Historically and semantically, not exactly.
Radical means extremely liberal/progressive, and its opposite, reactionary, means extremely conservative.Trump's actions may be "radical" in the "far out dude- you totally stuck it to Merkel by calling her a poopyhead" meaning, but in the end, killing people by ending their healthcare, giving tax cuts to the rich, and drumming up jingoism against brown people are all the same old hallmarks of boilerplate modern conservatism, for all that actually means nowadays.
Single payer and actually draining the swamp would be radical, in every sense of the word.
-
Reminder that the start of the Reign of Terror was Robespierre's faction murdering a bunch of their fellow revolutionaries who weren't revolutionary enough for their tastes. Not murdering evil child molesting Berserk nobles.
-
"A la mierda, ni a patadas" is more my style.
Populism is bad mmmmkay, even if you go out of your way to use it "for good" it creates drones instead of citizens, drones who will follow the next teat to suck.
-
@Monkey:
Can you first define what you mean by radicalism? Because it can mean lots of different things.
The US has been swinging from Rep policies to Dem policies for decades and decades. For that to stop, the country needs radical policies. This is what I meant, and I don't know how much more precise I could be. I'm not proposing any specific policy, and I'm not saying the country needs to be purged. –--period. I've already said that mentioning Robespierre might have been "a tad provocative".
Am I the first person ever you've heard saying Robespierre's radicalism was admirable though? Or maybe you did, but huuuIf your posing Robespierre as a sign that swinging to extreme populist leftism in response to extreme populist rightism is a cool idea, I concede the floor to the honorable Venezuelan representative Mr. Maxterdexter in arguing a solid "Ay dios mio no".
I don't. And I'm not supporting Sanders or Mélenchon to be clear. I voted Hamon at the last election (I guess I was forced to say that since you were just about to label me to be__something? a crypto-far-lefty-populist or something close?)
And how are you comparing the first Revolution (that mattered, lol) with Venezuela ? (rhetorical–- I don't care/want an answer) -
Assuming I've got an accurate grasp of the conversation (minus Robespierre, since outside of the Honor Harrington character Rob S Pierre I know nothing of the man):
I'm against extremism in any form. US politics already boils down to "I'm right and if you disagree you're automatically wrong and an enemy of the state" because of extreme elements on both sides, particularly the Right but the Left is not guiltless here with Unicorn Brigade types. At times it seems to devolve all the way down to "THEIR SIDE BAD!!!" I absolutely don't want to see how much further down the rabbit hole that can go.
-
Unicorn Brigade?
-
Unicorn Brigade?
A catch-all term I picked up from another forum I follow politics on, usually in reference to types of the Left like the Bernie-Bros and so on that believe in ideology over actually getting things done. I started using it in reference to them since "Sanders Supporters" and similar doesn't feel right, given it now feels like they have more prominence than the man himself.
-
The "perfect is the worst enemy of good" people. The "I don't need to compromise because I'm right" kind of people.
-
I see. That makes sense.
Also today is thd first time I've heard of Robespierre and a character just showed up on Kimmy Schmidt that has that last name lol. How weird.
-
The "perfect is the worst enemy of good" people. The "I don't need to compromise because I'm right" kind of people.
Precisely, yeah. Exactly the kind of extremes I prefer to avoid and generally do as much harm as good, if not more.
-
Everyone is nervous. I didn't say "the countryside needs to be p-p-p-p-p-p-p-urged" though.
-
Everyone is nervous. I didn't say "the countryside needs to be p-p-p-p-p-p-p-urged" though.
Given what it's already turned the Republican party into, radicalism or extremism in any form is, to my mind, a Very Bad Idea. The Left's "Unicorn Brigade" is still on the fringe mostly. Theirs took over. Granted, it's helped in some sense in that it's divided them on things we didn't want them accomplishing in the first place, but I think that just makes my "they do their side more harm than good" point for me.
-
Given what it's already turned the Republican party into, radicalism or extremism in any form is, to my mind, a Very Bad Idea.
Did you read my point about the US swinging from Dem and Rep policies for decades and decades? Once the opposition comes to the power, they dissolve –pretty much-- everything the other party has done. That thing needs to be fixed somehow. And to be fixed it needs radical reforms (and stuff, I don't know what and how tbh, maybe by people moving their ass massively, but never gonna happen).
And I'm not using the word radical and extreme as synonyms. -
Did you read my point about the US swinging from Dem and Rep policies for decades and decades? Once the opposition comes to the power, they dissolve –pretty much-- everything the other party has done. That thing needs to be fixed somehow. And to be fixed it needs radical reforms (and stuff, I don't know what and how tbh, maybe by people moving their ass massively, but never gonna happen).
And I'm not using the word radical and extreme as synonyms.I am. I don't see radical or extreme as all that different. Even if you're not using the words the same, your description of swinging policies still makes my point for me. We need less, not more, radicalism or whatever you're calling it. That way maybe long lasting compromises can be reached rather than just each side doing as much of their own thing as they can get away with in their tenures.
Any reforms, radical or otherwise, can only come from the parties themselves, and neither side will be interested until either more level heads prevail or one party or the other collapses.
-
If there are pictures of this, they should be THE only online response to any Trump supporter who opens their goddamn mouthes for the rest of eternity.
-
700 yards? He couldn't do 700 yards for someone who boasts of being in good physical health. This is sad. Amd he was late because he waited for the cart.
-
@Monkey:
Trump really is the sterotypical American. I'm embarrassed, especially cause I walk miles a day just to exercise a dog. What's this guy's excuse.
-
Trump doesn't believe in exercise or propriety but I thought he at least believed in optics.
-
I am. I don't see radical or extreme as all that different. Even if you're not using the words the same, your description of swinging policies still makes my point for me. We need less, not more, radicalism or whatever you're calling it. That way maybe long lasting compromises can be reached rather than just each side doing as much of their own thing as they can get away with in their tenures.
Any reforms, radical or otherwise, can only come from the parties themselves, and neither side will be interested until either more level heads prevail or one party or the other collapses.
Do you believe the Reps are not far-righties and reactionaries ? Remember the Obamacare ? Even with a majority of Dems at the Congress it was a miracle that the law passed.
The Obamacare is a good example of what I'm trying to say here. Now that the Republicans are at the power, they will dissolve everything the last president –from the opposition party-- tried to achieve. And this has been going on for a decades. It is not gonna magically stop all of a sudden.In other words, you're deluding yourself if you believe Dems and Reps can work together and reach compromises. (I mean, not compromises like "ISIS is bad" and other obvious stuff)
And you don't get what I'm saying by radical,
@Monkey:The dude might just die because of the shits he's eating tbh. I've just read an article that mentions what he eats, he considers the fries of McDonalds better than homemade fries for example.
not that great, but we can recognize the haircut though at least
-
I guaren-fucking-tee that the surrounding Sicilian towns and villages are full of hunched old women dressed in black walking miles up and down dirt and cobble roads every day.
-
I'm pretty sure there's a quote from him somewhere about how he doesn't exercise or something because people essentially have a battery of finite energy and he doesn't want to waste it. Some hogwash like that.
-
@Monkey:
I guaren-fucking-tee that the surrounding Sicilian towns and villages are full of hunched old women dressed in black walking miles up and down dirt and cobble roads every day.
Can confirm. Italian old women are tough cookies. Especially the sicilian ones. But you know what, Trump's in Italy right now, and Italy had Berlusconi being retarded, offensive and obscene for a stupid amount of years. So whose to judge?
-
Remember how people said that Conway wouldn't have any real influence on Trump because her office is on the second floor of the White House and he wouldn't walk up the stairs if she was busy?
Also, they've cancelled a rally he was supposed to have next week in Iowa.
-
Democrat Rosa DeLauro, U.S. Representative for Connecticut's 3rd congressional district, made her concerns and thoughts about the Education Department's fiscal 2018 budget clear to Betsy DeVos last Wednesday. It was pretty cool.
[hide]
-
And you don't get what I'm saying by radical,
Clearly. Though I acknowledge that one's as much on me as yourself. So you know where I'm coming from, to me the words "radical" and "extreme" are largely synonymous in that they both tend to mean "going too far with something". You did try to define how you meant radical earlier, but your definition of "radical" was "we need radical policies" with no further elaboration. Radical how exactly? And how does it differ from an "extreme policy"?
Do you believe the Reps are not far-righties and reactionaries ? Remember the Obamacare ? Even with a majority of Dems at the Congress it was a miracle that the law passed.
The Obamacare is a good example of what I'm trying to say here. Now that the Republicans are at the power, they will dissolve everything the last president –from the opposition party-- tried to achieve. And this has been going on for a decades. It is not gonna magically stop all of a sudden.In other words, you're deluding yourself if you believe Dems and Reps can work together and reach compromises. (I mean, not compromises like "ISIS is bad" and other obvious stuff)
I'm not saying they can work together. Not in the current climate. Reps basically run on "OBAMA BAD!!!" nowadays. The Republicans who can actually discuss and compromise are few, far between, and often still end up voting party line to save their own necks (see McCain). I stand by my statement though. Any sweeping change to break such a cycle either has to come from within the parties (which, as I said, they're uninterested in doing) or from the collapse of at least one party. I sincerely do not see how "radical policies" will change that. By your own logic, in describing how each party works to undo the others' work, it sounds to me like such policies would only make things worse.
-
Trump apparantly was being a total douche in general at the G7 summit. Refusing to listen to the Italian PM's speech, veto-ing statements on refugees along with the UK and turning his (non-) support for the climate accord into another reality show-esque farce where he will give his answer in a week.
-
Trump apparantly was being a total douche in general at the G7 summit. Refusing to listen to the Italian PM's speech, veto-ing statements on refugees along with the UK and turning his (non-) support for the climate accord into another reality show-esque farce where he will give his answer in a week.
As opposed to normal?
-
He called Justin Trudeau "Justin from Canada".
and many other things.Clearly. Though I acknowledge that one's as much on me as yourself. So you know where I'm coming from, to me the words "radical" and "extreme" are largely synonymous in that they both tend to mean "going too far with something". You did try to define how you meant radical earlier, but your definition of "radical" was "we need radical policies" with no further elaboration. Radical how exactly? And how does it differ from an "extreme policy"?
If you go by the dictionary, it's the same meaning– yes. Anyway, you're right, I fail at explaining what I mean by radical changes. After all, maybe the only big true problem are the electoral college and gerrymandering. I'm saying "only" but these things being reformed would be "radical" (?).
Let's hope Drump destroys his party (if he can't, no one can).
-
If you go by the dictionary, it's the same meaning– yes. Anyway, you're right, I fail at explaining what I mean by radical changes. After all, maybe the only big true problem are the electoral college and gerrymandering. I'm saying "only" but these things being reformed would be "radical" (?).
Let's hope Drump destroys his party (if he can't, no one can).
The gerrymandering, at least, we're chipping away at bit by bit with recent court decisions.